Posted
by
Soulskillon Wednesday April 24, 2013 @04:53PM
from the invested-in-android's-success dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In its continuing march toward locking up deals with every major Android and Chrome device maker, Microsoft announced on Tuesday a patent-licensing agreement with Chinese manufacturer ZTE. This follows a similar deal last week with the parent company of Foxconn. Microsoft's Deputy General Counsel Horacio Gutierrez said, 'Much of the current litigation in the so called 'smartphone patent wars' could be avoided if companies were willing to recognize the value of others’ creations in a way that is fair. At Microsoft, experience has taught us that respect for intellectual property rights is a two-way street, and we have always been prepared to respect the rights of others just as we seek respect for our rights. This is why we have paid others more than $4 billion over the last decade to secure intellectual property rights for the products we provide our customers.'"

China is one of the world's top country in term of pirated software, and I won't be surprised at all if many computers in ZTE offices are running pirated M$ softwares such as M$ office suites and M$ operating systems

I like it how the/. crowd assumes that behemoth companies like Samsung and Foxconn would just pay protection racket to MS instead of fighting in court if they thought Microsoft were full of shit. But don't you worry Google (via Motorola) are standing up. IANAL but if I interpret the news pieces I am reading correctly it is not going very well for them even though they paid 12 billion for Motorola patents.

Wait a minute, if your software weren't a cheap copy of someone else's idea you wouldn't have to worry about patents. But let's be honest, it is easier to whine about the "gross unfairness of patents" then it is to create a unique and original work.

Really? Exactly what is innovative about the patents being licensed by Microsoft?Oh, that's right, its secret. Every one of these deals is under an NDA, both as to the amount of money and the specific patents involved.And apparently the secrecy is more important to microsoft than is the money. They are scared to death that someone will reveal exactly what is covered and which patents are involved for fear that they would quickly be found invalid.

If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Everyone who signs Microsoft's agreement and continues to use the Linux kernel is in violation of its license. As such, anyone who holds copyright on the code in the kernel could file suit.

False. Microsoft's patents are about "doing shit on mobiles" and is not an attack on the Linux kernel but rather an attack on Android. The patents in question do not apply to the Linux kernel and the rest of Android is not published under the GPLv2.

"Much of the current litigation in the so called 'smartphone patent wars' could be avoided if companies were willing to recognize the value of others’ creations in a way that is fair."
Most of the Android licensing deals have been based around FAT32, which has been around since Win95. What sort of credible value of that technology remains in 2013? Absolutely none.

Actually these patent wars are leading to innovation: Samsung has an experimental fs called F2FS that is already in linux 3.8 which is specifically designed to replace FAT on flash storage. The next android version is pulling from 3.8 and I'm guessing at around 2013Q3 tizen will get released with it as well. Gparted already has beta support and I'm guessing a windows driver is just around the corner.

But it's basically irrelevant for the vast majority of consumer devices that use lash media, no camera in the next 20 years is going to need more than 4GB to store an image. Not even video will require that much space for some time with most devices having pretty strong compression.

And like I said, the discussion is irrelevant to things like external hard drives - those can be FAT but from a computer you can already use any number of modern file systems without the FAT limitations.

None of that is necessary. The Nexus S had no card slot and never emulated having FAT32 either. I doubt FAT32 libraries are even on the device.Now F2FS is nice, but not for avoiding FAT32 patents. It doesn't even solve the real problem that an F2FS SD card won't be read by Windows ever.

From what I understand F2FS is meant as a replacement for EXT4 on flash devices. Not on memory cards and other devices which need to be shared. Those still use FAT. Why the heck didn't the industry band around an open standard like UDF instead of FAT for removable media is something which still eludes me to this day.

The specific patent is for creating 8.3 file names from long file names. Linux works around it by simply not creating 8.3 file names, which seems to be more or less compatible with Windows which is presumably the goal here too.

Those patents will expire soon. Maybe ZTE figured it would be easier to just wait them out and pay a little bit than it would be to fight them.

The specific patent is for creating 8.3 file names from long file names.

You are a bit behind the times.FAT/Fat16 patents have already expired.Fat32 will fairly soon.But ExFAT will be around for a long time, and you can bet when speeds or card sizes improve there will be another file system patent locking you in for another few consecutive lifetimes.

I guess you've been brainwashed, or else you wouldn't be in denial of all the evidence that Scientology is a cult. Either that, or you're on the inside, a simple con artist.

But laying that aside for a moment, consider this thought exercise: two groups claim to have truth: one offers it freely, the other charges fees in a multi-step program of enlightenment. Which group makes money from winning converts, and which group makes nothing from winning converts? Which gr

Most of the Android licensing deals have been based around FAT32, which has been around since Win95. What sort of credible value of that technology remains in 2013? Absolutely none.

Much but not all.

Microsoft bought/brewed up MTP because FAT32 was expiring. Many smartphones use MTP to avoid having to put a true samba server or ftp server in the phones. There are also a few patents dealing with trivial user interface functionality.

With bigger MicroSD cards the phones also run afoul of the SD Association [sdcard.org] of which Microsoft is a member, and many other members are merely Microsoft sock puppets since Microsoft managed to get their proprietary file system declared the standard for MicroSD c

All these companies signing "secret" agreements with one another are colluding (and perhaps even forming a cartel) such that no one can enter the market without paying them. This has the direct result of setting a base line price below which *all* products in the market cannot be manufactured.

Well, you'd think, but I'm not sure. For a company that talks about how others are stealing their innovation, Microsoft seems pretty reluctant to tackle Google head-on over their supposed Android patent violations. And these periodic one-sided "Android maker licensed our stuff" announcements...

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I just get the feeling that Microsoft doesn't really hold the cards they're telling people they have.

For anyone curious, these are the 4 patents that Microsoft has been wielding like a club. Note: I've shortened it to list the basic claims below. Microsoft claims are repetitive legalize and go on and on repeating the same drivel over and over. Notice they are saying that they hold sole claim to the concepts of scheduling meetings, sending and receiving messages on a cellular network, storing file names in a file system, and pressing buttons. It would be laughable if they weren't successfully litigating the crap out of the entire Android industry. It's the dying screams of a company that no longer matters that has stopped innovating and wants someone else's success for themselves. Very sad and pathetic really. The truth is they could sue Apple, IBM or anyone else that even manufactures PCs out of existence with these patents if they wanted, they're so broad and there's so much prior art it's not even funny. The fact that they courts are upholding them is scary.

U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 on "generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device" On May 18, 2012, the ITC ordered a U.S. import ban against Motorola's Android-based devices that infringe this Microsoft patent.

Claims: The present invention includes a mobile device which provides the user with the ability to schedule a meeting request from the mobile device itself. The mobile device creates an object representative of the meeting request and assigns the object a global identification number which uniquely identifies the object to other devices which encounter the object. In this way, other devices which encounter the meeting request are capable of identifying it as a unique meeting request in order to alleviate the problem of duplicate meeting request transmissions. In accordance with another preferred feature of the present invention, an electronic mail application or calendar application on the mobile device obtains a fully qualified electronic mail address for the potential attendees from an abridged address book or directory stored on the mobile device itself. This alleviates problems associated with the storage capacity of the mobile device. In accordance with another preferred embodiment of the present invention, the mobile device creates the meeting object and the electronic mail meeting request object using a set of properties which are supported by a plurality of PIMs that may receive the objects. This provides compatibility with an increased number of devices which are likely to encounter the objects. In accordance with yet another preferred feature of the present invention, localizers implement a plurality of templates on the mobile device which are used in formatting the properties of the objects associated with the meeting request. A data stream representative of the meeting request is parsed by the mobile device and placed in pre-defined fields in the appropriate templates so that the text viewed by the user of the mobile device more closely conforms to local convention. In addition, time zone information is also included in one embodiment.

===

EP1304891 on "communicating multi-part messages between cellular devices using a standardized interface" On May 24, 2012, the Munich I Regional Court granted Microsoft an injunction over this patent against Motorola's Android-based devices. This was the first Microsoft v. Google decision ever. It came down only days after Google completed its acquisition of Motorola Mobility. The ruling is already being enforced in Germany.

Claims: A method for facilitating an application sending multiple short messages fragments, the method for use in a cellular network that facilitates the transmission of messages between cellular computing devices, the messages being multi-part messages that consist of multiple short message fragments of limited size: [either compressed, encrypted or wrapped in XML.]

===

EP0618540 on a "common name space for long and short filenames" On July 27, the Mannheim Regional Court granted Microsoft a German patent injunction against Go

Also based on the claims of that patent (the automatic packet fragmentation patent) it looks like now that ON THE INTERNET is a done thing, ON THE CELLULAR NETWORK is the new hotness for taking things everyone already does and patenting them all over again.

"EP0618540 on a "common name space for long and short filenames" On July 27, the Mannheim Regional Court granted Microsoft a German patent injunction against Google's Motorola Mobility over this file system patent. It decided the infringement question in Microsoft's favor and did not find Google's invalidity arguments strong enough to order a stay."

This is used for the FAT32 filesystem, presumably. This patent dates from 1994. It's been 19 years. Thankfully it will finally expire in another year. I'll c

Ok, hypothetically I create an android phone without that capability that I intend to sell. I also put a desktop linux distribution like Ubuntu in a chroot. I can surely schedule group meetings with evolution / thunderbird+lightning (I don't really undestand the patent text, but I think this would fall under the patent - "on a mobile device").

Do I violate the patent? Would I violate it on a desktop PC / notebook?

You don't see a problem to patent any implementation of creating a group meeting on any mobile d

In 1998, the concept of scheduling meetings using your phone was not obvious at all.

These are bullshit patents following the long tradition of: "on a computer", to "on the Internet", to "on a mobile device". Yes, in 1998 shitty cell phones with small screens and limited inputs weren't used to schedule meetings. As the devices became more like general purpose computers scheduling meetings with them became common, duh.

Bill Gates on patents, circa 1991: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. [..] In many application categories straighforward thinking ahead allows you to come up with patentable ideas."

The problem with these patent agreements with Microsoft is that the details are kept confidential. No one but Microsoft knows what the patents cover, the conditions or fees, and which patents Microsoft is licensing in return--which is more likely to be the case. Microsoft releases these puerile press releases announcing something that probably happens in the business world on a daily basis, yet only they feel the need to do this. I have my doubts that these agreements are as one-sided as Microsoft brags,

Has antitrust action ever been taken by the DOJ against a corporation on the grounds of patent abuse or the amount of intellectual property that a company claimed? Would there be any valid basis in the law for such an action? I imagine that the sheer size of Standard Oil, and the sheer size of its assets involved with oil production must have been a factor in the decision to have it broken up. Could such a situation ever arise with patents, since we seem to have entered an age when the largest tech companie

It is well known in the industry Microsoft likes to place artificial barriers to competitors. They either subside proxies to create precedents and vicious battles (hello SCO), or are eager to deal with patent trolls because they have deep pockets, and thus create precedents and problem for others.

These are the list of frivolous, prior art ridden patents Microsoft used to try and extort money from Barnes and Noble. When the trial was about to go to court a magical partnership was established between Microsoft and Barnes & Noble and the lawsuit was dropped. It's a pity more companies don't stand up to these patent trolls.

U.S. Patent No. 5778372 Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images. A browser remotely retrieves electronic documents from a remote computer network for viewing by a user. For enhancing responsiveness, the browser initially displays an electronic document without a background image so that the electronic document is initially displayed more quickly. The browser also prioritizes downloading of embedded images of the document by their incorporation in the currently visible portion of the electronic document. Further, the browser dynamically creates additional connections for retrieving resources incorporated into the electronic document from the remote computer network.

U.S. Patent No. 6339780 Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area. Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.

U.S. Patent No. 5889522 System Provided Child Window Controls. New varieties of child window controls are provided as system resources that application programs may exploit. The preferred embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic link library (DLL) for implementing the new child window controls as part of an operating system. The new child window controls include a header bar control for providing header bars in application programs. The new controls also include a hot key control that allows a user to view and edit hot key combinations. The new controls further include a tab control for establishing tabs that differentiate amongst pages in user interfaces provided by application programs. An image list data type is defined and functions are provided for manipulating the image list data type. Image lists include multiple like-sized images that are stored efficiently in a single bitmap.

U.S. Patent No. 6891551 Selection Handles in Editing Electronic Documents. A computer system and method for highlighting and selecting elements of electronic documents is disclosed. In one embodiment, a selection area identifies an initial selection of data, and one or more selection handles appear on the selection area to allow dynamic resizing of the selection area to select a larger or smaller portion of data or number of items.

U.S. Patent No. 6957233 Method and Apparatus for Capturing and Rendering Annotations for Non-Modifiable Electronic Content. A system and method for capturing annotations for a non-modifiable document is disclosed. Once it is determined that an annotation is to be created, the system determines the file position of the selected object. The file position of the selected object is stored along with the created annotation in another file or a non-read only po

U.S. Patent No. 6339780 Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area. Described herein is a portable computer having a limited display area. An Internet or other hypermedia browser executes on the portable computer to load and display content in a content viewing area. During times when the browser is loading content, the browser displays a temporary, animated graphic element over the content viewing area. The graphic element is removed after the content is loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content.

I've read a few patents, but this one takes the cake. They essentially patented not just the Internet equivalent to their own Windows startup screen, but the electronic equivalent to curtains at the Theater; and the TV equivalent to the opening sequence/song.

1. What is an idea?2. Is there even such a thing as an original idea?3. Who really deserves exclusive right to an idea?4. Can ideas even be owned?5. Should they be owned?6. Is anyone entitled to money just because he thought of something?7. Is one who thought of an idea entitled to more money than the one who puts in the work to develop it, engineer it, and bring it to market?8. Is it necessary for someone who thinks of an idea to receive compensation for it without continuin

I could debate this but choose not to. I disagree that patents and copyrights are immoral, I think they have their place but the problem is that greed has twisted and perverted the original purpose of these systems. I do believe that software patents are wrong as copyright should be sufficient protection for software.